Two sides to look at I think. The army of one being all they can be? On one hand, he's been in the miltary for over 5 yrs, counting his Navy Reserve time. He should expect to see combat...

LONEEAGLE

01-10-04, 12:34 PM

I totally disagree with you GreyBeard....I seen some super nasty stuff when I first got to Nam. I had three troops that went a bit &quot;NUTSOID&quot; when they seen their first combat.....I tried to help...

yellowwing

01-10-04, 03:37 PM

Dang Big Eagle, that's the best thing I've seen written here in a long time. Outstanding. :marine:

I firmly beleive that we do have our own society. The press and the public can be our best friends or worst detractors. They cheer us for quick victories, but sneer when we pin our brothers with para wings. If we didn't have each other, we'd all go nutzoid.

greybeard

01-10-04, 04:11 PM

Did you read this part of my post? I never said he was a coward.

"This individual may or may not have been a coward, but he should have stayed under the civilian porch with the other civilian pups, where he didn't have to view such things firsthand."

We're speaking of this individual. He was in the Army Special Forces. Not right out of boot camp, but a 5 yr veteran. No doubt, he had to have considered that eventually he would wind up in combat. As I said above, I don't think there is any indoctrination that can prepare a person 100% for the carnage. But, once a person decides, or has it decided for him, that he can't handle it, get him out of the armed forces. A standing force that contains elements can't fight is not doing anyone any good.

It's not for me to say whether he was a coward or not, I ain't inside his brain & don't want to be--but the fact is, that he was unable to do his job. He couldn't take care of himself and couldn't take care of his fellow soldiers in this situation, so he needs to be removed from that responsibility. By allowing him to remain at a secure, safe, desk job, it sets a precedent. Anyone who wants the secure paycheck, education benefits, medical benefits etc will be able to just say "I can't handle combat-let me stay home in the states and let me have it easy till I retire." This was one of the reasons that caused the draft during Vietnam. Many people decided they did not want to join or fight, so they sat it out and their replacements came in the form of draftees. What you are advocating, is to allow anyone who wants to be able to--to shirk their duty, not on moral grounds, but on psychological grounds. If given a choice, most would choose a year in Calif over a year in Vietnam or Iraq. What if this individual had made into his assigned companywithout witnessing the gory sight that sent him over the edge? Only when he saw combat on the company level would his problem have become evident. Not much help to his buddies in the field.

1. Are we to have a 2 tier military?
1st tier=combatants
2nd tier=non-combatants.

2. This will mean that the combatants will have to rotate back into combat more often, since the pool to draw from is significantly smaller now that some/many have decided it's not for them. How fair is that, and how much does it increase the casualty chances of those who do have to rotate back into the field?

All I'm saying is those that can't make it in combat shouldn't be in the armed forces. It puts their burden on someone else.